Scientist and God

First thing I’m going to say: This is a point of view from someone who believes in god, not necessarily any religion. Please don’t comment here just to argue my right to believe. I would love to hear arguments on the existence or non existence, that’s interesting. But my personal belief will never change.

Ok so here is my thought:

So many scientist get paid to "debunk" god and religion, but in that aspect aren't' they contradicting themselves?? Most of the time the stuff they dig up usually gives Christians more things to believe in. I just think it funny that without the notion of god, these guys wouldn't have a job. Who should they be thanking for their job, god or the non-existence of him???


Sorry if i don't make sense, lol, any questions are welcome, and sorry if this is in the wrong thread

reply to post by CherryDuck

I just think it funny that without the notion of god, these guys wouldn't have a job. Who should they be thanking for their job, god or the non-existence of him???

Edit: You are talking about the people who strictly work to debunk religion? If they weren't debunking religion, I'm sure they'd be working on something else.

Sorry, I'm tired and my reply made less sense.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by virraszto]

I'm talking about the scientist who specialize in say evolution, and topics which as well as trying to find information, would debunk religion in the process.

Take evolution: IF we were able to work out how it happened, we would have descovered it years ago. (in my opinion) But we haven't.. There are THEORY'S but no straight FACTS. The scientists that study this for a job, wouldn't have this job if there was facts. Do you understand>? Sorry, sometimes i'm a little backwards in coming forward

Cherry

reply to post by CherryDuck

Please don’t comment here just to argue my right to believe

I just think it funny that without the notion of god, these guys wouldn't have a job.

Have you been drinking..?

The scientists that study this for a job, wouldn't have this job if there was facts.

Wrong...they would just take the facts they have and go in a new direction - this is common practice regardless of the field of study.


Your 'stance' that scientist are bottom feeders is quite ignorant...


But then again, you believe in a god...par for the course IMO.

Originally posted by CherryDuck
I'm talking about the scientist who specialize in say evolution, and topics which as well as trying to find information, would debunk religion in the process.

Take evolution: IF we were able to work out how it happened, we would have descovered it years ago. (in my opinion) But we haven't.. There are THEORY'S but no straight FACTS. The scientists that study this for a job, wouldn't have this job if there was facts. Do you understand>? Sorry, sometimes i'm a little backwards in coming forward

Cherry

Hi Cherry,

Welcome to ATS!

I can certainly understand why you would argue these things at first glance.

On the surface it seems to be logical things to think!

But when it comes to science and God, you have to dig much deeper.

Here are a couple of links that will give you some more insight, I hope, into your queries.

I hope you take the time to have a look at them.

The definition of theory when applied to science.

Scroll down the page a little on this link:
Percentage of scientists that believe in a god

This shows how religion and evolution can co-exist quite easily
Theistic Evolution

Looking forward to your reply

Edit to add information

[edit on 16/3/09 by Horza]

Originally posted by CherryDuck
So many scientist get paid to "debunk" god and religion,

Wait... we get PAID??????

I'd like to know by whom, because someone owes me 30 years of back salary.

Most of the time the stuff they dig up usually gives Christians more things to believe in.

You may not have met any scientists or talked to them. About 25% of scientists are religious, and many of those are Christians. I don't see how knowing (for example) why cold flow plastics make for better hip replacements than titanium steel would affect any Christian's belief. I don't understand why knowing about the methane ice on Saturn's moons would affect Christian belief in a good way or a bad way.

I just think it funny that without the notion of god, these guys wouldn't have a job.

The scientists I am working for (paleontology lab, dinosaurs) are digging bones out of rocks and describing bones. No deity is involved and the notion of a god (or no god) has nothing to do with the shape of the skull or how many horns this particular dinosaur had on its neck frill or how many toes it had on its feet.

You might like to look at the Science News site and read up on daily science news and decide if you think the stories there really affect belief strongly.
www.sciencenews.org...

For instance, there's an article there today about how anger and hostility makes men more prone to heart trouble.

I don't see how that affects whether you believe in a Christian god, a Muslim god, Buddha, Shintoism, Paganism, follow the Jedi religion, or are agnostic or atheist:
www.sciencedaily.com...

Perhaps you could explain how the results of these scientists (and this actually involves evolutionary theory in its background) affects your belief.

Or this one about how young dinosaurs roamed together in packs:
www.sciencenews.org...

How does this affect religious beliefs?

Ok, soooo many things to answer too, and i'm not saying i have all the answers, lol, just mostly opinions.

To the statement that most scientists are religious:

Almost 52 percent of scientists surveyed identified themselves as having no current religious affiliation compared with only 14 percent of the general population. And while nearly 14 percent of the U.S. population who responded to the GSS describe themselves as "evangelical" or "fundamentalist," less than 2 percent of the RAAS population identifies with either label.

Source: dailyatheist.blogspot.com...

Since i'm horrible at explaining myself, i'll add another quote that may add to my case, and maybe help others understand my trail of thought:

The concept of God is often invoked to explain phenomena. If the phenomenon is one that has a scientific explanation, then it is possible to compare the scientific merits of the two explanations, one based on science and the other or God or, more generally, on faith. The nature of what constitutes a good scientific theory is not universally understood. As a result, sometimes reasoning based on faith is seriously promoted as scientific. Scientists tend to judge scientific theories on their accuracy, simplicity, and suggestiveness. Any faith-based theory that is represented as scientific should be subjected to those three criteria. We will illustrate this point with some very simple, perhaps trivial, examples. Not all phenomena can be successfully explained by science. In some cases a scientific explanation is possible but not yet available. In others, such explanations will never exist. In still others, people will have different opinions as to whether and when such explanations will be developed. In cases where science does not (yet) have a needed answer, what are we to do? We scientists use scientific theories as long as they seem to do the job. In the same spirit, we can use arguments based on faith so long as they seem to work, and as long as we keep in mind the assumptions made. Without this kind of approach we would be severely limited in what we could do. Much of the work of many professions, including engineering, deals with human nature, for which we have no scientific theories. In addition, science itself rests on assumptions about nature and the rational thought process that are not, in the final analysis, provable. Finally, we scientists are ourselves humans, and so our activities "off the job" require dealing with matters for which no scientific theory will work.

Source: www-mtl.mit.edu...

Your 'stance' that scientist are bottom feeders is quite ignorant... But then again, you believe in a god...par for the course IMO.

I never said they were "bottom feeders" hopefully the quotes i have added will maybe help you understand my original point : Without the ''supposed'' exsistance of a higher being, in some cases, there would be LESS for the scientific community to study and argue.

Also one of my favorites, and i'm sorry if i annoy any one by writting this. The theory of the big bang... where did the first 2 atoms come from?

Cherry

Please if i've missed anything, let me know, thanks everyone for your replys

For those who believe:

The scientist is there to strengthen your belief. I have found that almost all scientific discoveries strengthen my belief, and only prove how awesome GOD truly is.

For those who don't believe:

Due to their open minds, the scientist, give you an alternative belief system that will not disrupt your current beliefs.

Sounds like a win/win to me.

I think you're a bit confused about how scientists approach what they do.

They don't go looking for proof that there is no God. If the facts that they analyze point to the existence of an intelligent creative entity that sculpts fossils and manipulates their atoms to fool the dating procedures we have, then they will posit such a being and come up with ways to test whether or not that's the best explanation for what they find.

As it turns out, there are other hypotheses that make more sense than a God who wants to toy with our understanding of Earth's history by planting red herrings throughout the soil strata of the globe.

Similarly, scientists who study the beginning of the universe use observation and mathematics to form hypotheses about how it happened. I'm not going to provide any examples here because while I know a little bit about chemistry and biology I know absolutely nothing about cosmology, quantum physics, astrophysics, or any of the other branches of science involved in studying the beginning of things.

I forget who it was, but someone posted a link to the wikipedia article on evolution with divine direction; that's a good place to start, especially if you come from a fundamentalist or evangelical Protestant background. That lays out the Catholic Church's official position on the issue: that evolution as understood by modern biology is completely consistent with the Christian god of the Bible.

The statistics given in this thread about whether or not scientists are "religious" are also a bit confusing to me, since no definition of "religious" is given.

People do not have to be affiliated with a specific church to believe in God. And people can believe in a Higher Power without having any concept of that power being an actual entity as opposed to an abstract patterning force. Those are not "atheistic" positions but they are also not "religious" positions according to some definitions of "religion".

Take evolution: IF we were able to work out how it happened, we would have descovered it years ago. (in my opinion) But we haven't.. There are THEORY'S but no straight FACTS.

You are assuming that
* we can look at something and have every bit of information on it (such as chemical structure, molecular structure, physics, biology) and that there is nothing new to discover about anything in the world.
* that things are so simple that we can explain them with a few words and that newer and better telescopes and microscopes and other instruments will not change what we know about things.
* that we have dug up all the fossils there are to be found and we now have fossils of everything with nothing missing and no hints of families of creatures.

That's not true, I'm afraid. We can't look at a human (like you, for instance) and instantly know what diseases you are prone to and which parts of your cells have genetic code for what. I can't lay hands on you and determine who your great-great-great-great grandparents are or what their jobs were.

The scientists that study this for a job, wouldn't have this job if there was facts.

That would mean that nothing new could ever be discovered ... and so instead of scientists we'd have teachers.

That's possible, as long as you believe that we can never learn anything new about the world or the universe. If so, you are welcome to your belief... no one will argue that you MUST believe that new things are being discovered all the time.

However, I have a large dinosaur bone in the lab and we're preparing a paper on it this year that will settle some arguments about this particular beast... and in addition I have found some new things within the bone that have not been discovered before. So I believe we have not learned everything there is to know.

There is a need for people to write their own "Bible" of knowledge and
control.

This is what God did, so they do it for themselves.

There are all sorts of bibles from school books on economics
and probability to operational plans for world conquest.

God's workings can't be seen so moving in with a god elimination
operation is easy as pie.

What do you made of "because the universe is so vast there must
be other life forms". From there one can extrapolate to superior
aliens.

This is re creating creation as laid down in the original book of
truth.

The space exploration scientist has created their own tenants
of belief to keep their existence in the forefront of technology.


If there happens to be superior technology around, its not going
to be in any bible likely to be published or utilized.

ED: Thus in making their own bible and control act in the image
of God.


[edit on 3/17/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

Scientific Theory is falsifiable by definition. God isn't falsifiable. There is no way to prove/disprove God. There never will be.

Evolution doesn't disprove god. The only thing it disproves is the literal creation story of the bible. But even in understanding I don't think evolution and creationism is so different. It doesn't say how things were created, it doesn't rule out evolution, the creation story is just more "simple".

I'm a programmer for example, and I "create" many programs and functions. These programs and functions "evolve" over time as I add new things to them. I also take from and use functions from previous programs I've written. So when the bible says animals came before man, and evolution does as well, I don't see a contradiction. In fact, I see all the things I see in programming also in evolution, dna and so forth.

To me, it's like the bible is the explanation you would give someone in a "general" study class. Or for like a beginner course in a subject, where as evoltuion/intelligent design would be a more detailed version. If your child was to ask you a question about how does a rocket work, you aren't going to get into physics details and break out the equations on how it works, instead you will give a more general description.

I don't need to know the physics to catch and throw a baseball. Physics can describe in detail where the ball will go, how fast and so on, but I don't actually need to know physics in order to do those things.

Where science goes wrong is that it ignores consciousness/soul, and that is to ignore god. Science is only equipped to handle things which happen on a action/reaction level, and can not deal with things like consciousness where it is not based on action and reaction. The universe/creation itself is all based on laws/logic and that is action and reaction. Consciousness is not a result of logic, but is instead what creates logic.

When science is faced with consciousness and such, it just contributes it to being "random". But yet, there is a no room for random in a universe based only on action and reaction.

Generally I find it's not actually the scientists who make or use science as arguments against god. Sure some do, but in general I find it's people who aren't scientists who do that. And in such a case, these people forget the scientist(consciousness) must be present before any understanding of it can even exist in the first place.

First of all, did you REALLY have to use evolution as your example? you were just asking to have the thread taken on a tangent with that one.

Secondly, the study of evolution has nothing to do with discrediting a creator, it has everything to do with tracing back the development of life on earth. The only people that see the study of evolution as going against or trying to debunk God... are people who's belief system is threatened by the idea of evolution. Science is the quest for knowledge, not the quest for the knowledge required to make people lose their faith.

Personally, no i don't believe in god, but not because I believe in Evolution(i do). I dont' blieve in God, because I think that religion is a crutch that humanity has leaned on for far, far too long. To me, religion is nothing but a way for the uninformed to explain the things that they either cannot understand, or are not willing to put the time and effort in required to understand.

In short, no. That is like me saying anyone that works for any religious organisation is doing so purely to keep the ignorant from gaining too much knowledge. It's absurd.

So many scientist get paid to "debunk" god and religion, but in that aspect aren't' they contradicting themselves??

The best way i can clear up your misguidance is explaining that there is no specific direction scientists go by that dispoves your personal belief. For example, if i believed a flying pink invisible unicorn created the universe and then science demonstrates there is no such thing. The scientific method used to show the theory of how the universe really works wasn't spicifically accumulated to disprove my personal unicorn belief.

It's just that my belief doesn't scale up to the scientific method used to reveal how the universe really works. So if i was a logical minded person i would realize my unicorn belief is wrong because the current theory regards it as wrong, and so i would move on to accept the scientific theory and not to my personal belief.

What scientists get paid to do is look for the answers. If we happen to find those answers contridict belief in the supernatural, then we should let go of that belief and move on to what science finds out. If i knew science showed my unicorn to not really exist i wouldn't still cling to it through faith, hopping i'm still right some how. That's what you and every one like you is doing.

Most of the time the stuff they dig up usually gives Christians more things to believe in.

If you really believed that you wouldn't be against evolution because that's obvisouly something that has been dug up and certainly doesn't give more things for Christians to believe in - otherwise you wouldn't be against it.

I just think it funny that without the notion of god, these guys wouldn't have a job. Who should they be thanking for their job, god or the non-existence of him???.

I don't get how that works, can you expand on what you mean please?

Gday,

Originally posted by CherryDuck
So many scientist get paid to "debunk" god and religion,

Nonsense.
Scientists are NOT paid to debunk religion at all.
Scientists are paid to find things out.
And this sometimes shows religious beliefs are wrong.

Originally posted by CherryDuck
but in that aspect aren't' they contradicting themselves??

No.

Originally posted by CherryDuck
Most of the time the stuff they dig up usually gives Christians more things to believe in.

What?
Scientists find out things so we all can know the facts.
NOTHING to do with BELIEF.
NOTHING to do with Christians.

Originally posted by CherryDuck
I just think it funny that without the notion of god, these guys wouldn't have a job.

Complete nonsense.
Science has NOTHING to do with god at all.

Originally posted by CherryDuck
Who should they be thanking for their job, god or the non-existence of him???

WTF?
They should thank the universities who hired them.
NOTHING to do with god at all !
Scientists study what can be observed.
God cannot be observed.



Kapyong

Faith is not what you know but what you believe.



I dont believe in everything i read. And i dont use Google to tell anyone that!! Its what i know. Because!! what's on google is not what i know but what i read.

The same should go for religion. Religion is what you read but its not what you know. You should at least think before you believe. So you dont use your believes as a fact.

Science at least try to think before they believe by doing research. If science should have any critic! it should be in the way they present the evidence.

I think a lot of science pages do everything just to provoke religion. By shoving a cartoon of a ape shape shifting into a human. By saying that this is what happened. It gives people the wrong impression. And impression is everything. It will make you believe or disbelieve.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]